Ten Cent Property Tax Increase Recommended.

The Finance Committee has submitted a Council bill to set the City property tax levy at ninety-five cents per thousand dollar valuation. This would be ten cents higher than last year and it is estimated that approximately $60,000 would be realized from the increase.

About 60% of City property tax revenue is paid by residential property owners. Commercial property makes up approximately 39% with agricultural property amounting to the remaining 1%. The ten cent difference would amount to about ten dollars per year for a house valued at $100,000.

According to an explanation by City Attorney David Dally during last week's Council meeting, the State allows the City to levy up to ninety-five cents. Last year the Council voted to voluntarily reduce the levy to the current eighty-five cents. Dally explained that the City is allowed to set the levy at any level up to the ninety-five cents without triggering the Handcock amendment.

The levy will be heard in second reading during the next Council meeting on September 8 in City Hall. A final vote on the bill is expected at that time.

Landfill Closure Fund Particulars.

The idea of reducing or eliminating the $1.17 charge on residential utility bills that goes into a special Landfill Closure fund was approached by Public Works Committee Chair Bill Fortune during last week's regular Council meeting. The fund was established when it was decided to close the City's landfill permanently. The Missouri Department of Natural resources requires that the City not only test the property for possible contamination at the time of closing, but monitor the property for thirty years following the closure.

The Landfill Closure Fund currently has a balance of approximately $106,000 and the closure is completed and has been approved by DNR. Some Council members feel that the amount in the fund is sufficient to at least begin reducing the amount put in the account.

According to Engineering Department Head Joe Butler, DNR no longer requires that the City continue to build the fund. Mayor Johnson told the Council during last week's meeting that the City is still liable for any contamination the landfill may cause in the future and they should make sure there is enough in the fund to cover those liabilities.

Fortune inferred that some of the $1.17 currently collected could go toward the $1.29 recycling charge passed by the Council. Butler says that money collected for the Landfill Closure Fund cannot be used for other purposes.

A Look At Your New Trash Rate Card.

Letters to the Editor

Opinions expressed frflect those of the writer and not necessarily those of the Mornin' Mail.

Dear Editor,

I think there has been misunderstanding of the recycling issue by one side or the other. I have had individuals call me and ask if curb side meant they HAD to take the trash to the CURB when they were disabled and could not do it. The answer is of course is no. Everything will stay the same way it is now, your trash will be picked up where you always have it picked up. The recycling is not mandatory, its totally volunteer. From what I understand, if one wants to recycle, you can purchase clear plastic bags, put ALL of your recyclables in ONE plastic bag, newspapers, aluminum, plastic bottles etc. and American Disposal will separate it later. The only difference is the price. Currently I pay $7.07 for trash pickup, by recycling I will pay $7.96 eighty nine cents difference or 23 cents a week. This is less than the cost of gasoline it would cost to take my recyclable to a center. Also $1.17 of the cost of trash pickup price is for landfill closure fees and we have been collecting this fee for years. There was a suggestion from the chairman of the Public Works committee that possibly that fee could be reduced to compensate for the increase in recycling. This is a five year contract and the DNR has guidelines that landfills must reduce the amount of solid waste going into these sites and recycling is one way to accomplish this. Like it or not we are going into the 21 century and who knows what guidelines there may be by 2003. Many Eastern states now have anywhere from .05 to .15 deposit on each aluminum can, glass bottle and some plastic containers in order to keep the trash down at the landfills. New York ships most of its trash by railroad and tractor trailer trucks to western states that will still allow it. I don't want us to get to that point in Missouri. If the objection to recycling is the price of the contract I think we can handle that, or we can re bid the contract. If the objection to recycling is because you do not feel it is necessary then we need some education.

If after looking at the consequences and the options of recycling, the majority of the citizens of Carthage disagree with curb side recycling. I will vote to change the contract and continue to separate my newspapers, cans, cardboard etc. into different containers, store them on my back porch and when I can't walk around it anymore load it into my pickup, drive to Joplin and re cycle anyway. If anyone wants to discuss my vote with me they can call me anytime.

Donna Harlan

5th Ward Council member 358-7039

Dear Editor,

Just read your "Backlash" article-it appears very one sided-neglects to mention the $1.17 landfill charge the we will rebate upon approval from DNR, nor you are not writing about the "Secret" tax hike via the tax levy that is trying to get passed. Further the "backlash" is only being observed by two who are against recycling. My phone calls have been diametrically opposite! I have received numerous calls congratulating me on taking a progressive posture. I hope the last two articles were not editorials masquerading as articles! Hope you will look on the other side of the fence too!!!

Trisha Burgi

4th Ward Council member

Just Jake Talkin'
Mornin',

As you can see from the "Letters to the Editor" today, there is some confusion as to how the new trash contract is gonna affect us taxpayers. In today's issue you will find the three main elements that are bein' tossed around in the same basket. My personal feelin' is that they are three seperate and completely different issues and should be treated as such.

The first, of course, is the fact that the basic trash pick up rate was actually reduced with the new contract bid by American Disposal Services. That's the good news.

Now's when there comes come confusion. Those who are pushin' for the mandatory recyclin' charge like to talk in terms of what it's gonna cost in relation to what the current rate is. They completly disregard the fact that the current rate is no longer an issue. The issue is how much more we'll be charged over and above what the new contract rates are (see Rate Card inside).

The second issue is the Landfill Closure Fund. There is some talk reducin' or eliminatin' the $1.17. Some have said that charge could be used to reduce the "impact" of the recyclin' fee. This doesn't change the fact that I'm still payin'. If we are goin' to reduce the Landfill Closure charge, great. But don't take the money I'd be savin' and put it in another fund and tell me how much I'm savin' over there.

The real bottom line is if we eliminated the Landfill Closure fund (which I'm not convinced is prudent yet) and didn't add the mandatory recyclin' charge, I'd be puttin' the $2.44 I saved a month back into the economy as I see fit.

The property tax bump seems ta somehow be gettin' thrown into the discussion about recyclin'. That's the third piece of the pie. This one I've got no particular feelin's on, except there is no doubt what it is. It's a tax that will go to the general fund ta be used for whatever the Council sees fit. No doubt about that. At least it is an honest tax that is plain ta see what it is. I do find it a little ironic that the property tax increas will amount to roughly the same amount, $60,000, that the mandatory recyclin' charge will be. All things bein' equal, I'd rather see my tax dollars goin' to the general fund as be turned into a new gargage truck.

Since we've moved back to the recyclin' issue, I would like to announce that I have offered to collect all the recyclables in town once a week and do it for one dollar a year less than the contract now on the table. I think I can make it work on the sixty grand a year and save the taxpayers five bucks over the next five years. I'd even buy my truck here locally, (a small pickup should do), buy all the gas and parts locally, and continue to live right here in the community so ever dollar would stay here at home. I'd bet I'd get ta know those who recycle by their first name too. I doubt that my offer was taken serious, but the more I think about it, the better it sounds.

This is some fact, but mostly,

Just Jake Talkin'.

by

McCune Brooks Hospital

Health Notes

SOY PROTEIN research is leading to some interesting revelations. While it’s been suspected for years that soybean products may be a factor in the low rates of heart disease in those countries, scientists were not able to prove any direct link.

Now, there’s some indication that soy protein may act as an anti-oxidant, which prevents the oxidation of the LDL ("bad" cholesterol) and HDL ("good" cholesterol).

When the LDL cholesterol fraction is oxidized, it can produce the damaging effects of atherosclerosis or hardening of the arteries, which can then lead to stroke. Only non-oxidized HDL can clean out the nasty LDL cholesterol. But once it goes through the oxidation process, the HDL cholesterol can no longer keep those arteries clean.

Another factor is something I call replacement therapy. Soy products are an excellent replacement for red meat and other high-saturated fat foods. If you won’t give up your red meat dinners even for a few days a week, then at least add tofu to your chopped meat recipes. It will replace some of the saturated fat you’d be likely to ingest.

Do we risk our health if we reduce our intake of animal proteins? Restricting the intake of protein from animals may be one of the most healthful things you can do for yourself.

ARCHIVES Index